What will happen to National now?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › What will happen to National now?

1 | ... | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3095059 26-Jun-2023 13:17

In summing up on Sunday, Luxon said National would end the cost-of-living crisis, lift income and provide tax relief.

Their conference was biased towards Law and Order, thats fine, that like many other issues are important. However the cost of living crisis was a one liner in that article, a bit odd. But its going to end soon, so I guess that's ok

No detail as usual

EDIT

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300913767/take-five-key-questions-about-the-national-partys-conference-promises-answered

mudguard

2327 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#3095099 26-Jun-2023 15:25

GV27:

You're looking at huge spikes in something that was already, at the time of GFC, past the Demographia defintion of 'unaffordable'.

External, global events do have an effect. That's why they're 'global' events.

But stupid stuff like ignoring the tax aspect of huge numbers of Kiwis using residential property as a de facto retirement scheme for tax-free gains, massive population increases driven by migration well above international averages and the huge performance and cultural issues around our central bank have all meant those swings have gotten wilder and never returned to a proper baseline.

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree, but population growth and cheaper credit have poured petrol all over it. I've said numerous times that I wonder if laws could be rewritten to limit mortgage loans to a single entity, and the value of that home is fixed along with the loan. IE any equity is simply down to wait you've paid off, and it can't be applied to a subsequent property purchase. But that horse is long bolted, with a population now below replacement rate we really are doomed and it's only going to be fiddling around the edges regardless of who is in parliament.

quickymart

14942 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13958

ID Verified

#3095121 26-Jun-2023 15:59

Marty Bradbury (aka Bomber) has an interesting - maybe dystopic? - look at what could happen if National and ACT win this year:

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2023/06/26/what-a-national-act-government-looks-like/

Also their conference: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2023/06/26/national-party-conference-2023-when-will-rich-white-guys-get-a-break-and-brave-courageously-liberal-change-in-parole-rules/

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3095177 26-Jun-2023 19:02

mudguard:

IE any equity is simply down to wait you've paid off, and it can't be applied to a subsequent property purchase.

Its not that simple

House prices rise (as they always have), makes no difference. If you sell your overpriced house with your grown equity, then you buy the next house in the same market, its the "same market"

The better option is to equalise house builds with house buys. Buys exacerbate the supply/demand problem. Builds reduce it.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3095178 26-Jun-2023 19:05

quickymart:

Marty Bradbury (aka Bomber) has an interesting - maybe dystopic? - look at what could happen if National and ACT win this year:

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2023/06/26/what-a-national-act-government-looks-like/

Also their conference: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2023/06/26/national-party-conference-2023-when-will-rich-white-guys-get-a-break-and-brave-courageously-liberal-change-in-parole-rules/

There is merit in that article, BUTTT its a crappy anti National soundbite. At best

Bomber, yes, makes sense...

mudguard

2327 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#3095181 26-Jun-2023 19:32

tdgeek:

House prices rise (as they always have), makes no difference. If you sell your overpriced house with your grown equity, then you buy the next house in the same market, its the "same market"

The better option is to equalise house builds with house buys. Buys exacerbate the supply/demand problem. Builds reduce it.

I meant more in regards to multiple property ownership. If it was 20% cash deposit each time it may slow the rise as you couldn't use the equity from one house to finance into another rental/bach etc.

Surely a reduction in the multiple property owners would cool the market?

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#3095182 26-Jun-2023 19:33

mudguard:

GV27:

You're looking at huge spikes in something that was already, at the time of GFC, past the Demographia defintion of 'unaffordable'.

External, global events do have an effect. That's why they're 'global' events.

But stupid stuff like ignoring the tax aspect of huge numbers of Kiwis using residential property as a de facto retirement scheme for tax-free gains, massive population increases driven by migration well above international averages and the huge performance and cultural issues around our central bank have all meant those swings have gotten wilder and never returned to a proper baseline.

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree, but population growth and cheaper credit have poured petrol all over it. I've said numerous times that I wonder if laws could be rewritten to limit mortgage loans to a single entity, and the value of that home is fixed along with the loan. IE any equity is simply down to wait you've paid off, and it can't be applied to a subsequent property purchase. But that horse is long bolted, with a population now below replacement rate we really are doomed and it's only going to be fiddling around the edges regardless of who is in parliament.

Anything that isnt owner occupied should be treated as commercial property (with the same limits on gearing and interest coverage). The RBNZ has the ability to enact this. And doesnt.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#3095219 27-Jun-2023 06:41

mudguard:

But that horse is long bolted, with a population now below replacement rate we really are doomed and it's only going to be fiddling around the edges regardless of who is in parliament.

Which is why daycare and childcare costs need so much attention. If you make it cost $350pw to have kids under three in care when you need two working parents to pay a mortgage, people just start having fewer kids or don't have them at all. If you make it too hard to get the mortgage even if you compromise on your family (like I have) then you just start looking for places you can live where you can probably have both.

People are great at assuming that our birth rate is as low as it is for the same reasons it started dropping in the first place (women having careers, bodily autonomy etc) but I'd argue that women who can't afford to have families even though they may actually really want to are also losing a degree of bodily autonomy as well. This has the very convenient by-product of not having to acknowledge how wildly expensive it is to actually raise a family, which some people seem to be happy with if they don't have any suggestions on how we improve the situation.

And of course, you can paper over this by just importing more and more people and driving up rents and pressure on services anyway.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3095660 28-Jun-2023 03:40

Handle9:
gzt: [
We do have to ask why you keep saying this in different topics. The only first world economy in recession? It just isn't true.

It’s interesting that you never got a response.

Did you every get a response?

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#3095661 28-Jun-2023 06:01

I mean the drivers for our inflation are different for the ones in other countries, so there's that.

JPNZ

1716 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 840

#3095757 28-Jun-2023 10:44

GV27:

Which is why daycare and childcare costs need so much attention. If you make it cost $350pw to have kids under three in care when you need two working parents to pay a mortgage, people just start having fewer kids or don't have them at all.

I don't have children but I talked to a workmate who has two and he told me that figure, I spat out my coffee! To me that cost is absolutely ridiculous

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#3095760 28-Jun-2023 11:03

JPNZ:

GV27:

Which is why daycare and childcare costs need so much attention. If you make it cost $350pw to have kids under three in care when you need two working parents to pay a mortgage, people just start having fewer kids or don't have them at all.

I don't have children but I talked to a workmate who has two and he told me that figure, I spat out my coffee! To me that cost is absolutely ridiculous

On what basis ?
For under 2's I think it is one teacher for 3 children.

Even at only 60k for wages that is $10/hr
Now add on all the costs for the holding, admin, etc.

For some equipment we have, we pay that per hour for a service engineer !

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3095819 28-Jun-2023 13:51

GV27:

I mean the drivers for our inflation are different for the ones in other countries, so there's that.

Citation required. I’d say they are pretty similar in most western countries.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#3095931 28-Jun-2023 17:53

GV27:

Which is why daycare and childcare costs need so much attention. If you make it cost $350pw to have kids under three in care when you need two working parents to pay a mortgage, people just start having fewer kids or don't have them at all. If you make it too hard to get the mortgage even if you compromise on your family (like I have) then you just start looking for places you can live where you can probably have both.

People are great at assuming that our birth rate is as low as it is for the same reasons it started dropping in the first place (women having careers, bodily autonomy etc) but I'd argue that women who can't afford to have families even though they may actually really want to are also losing a degree of bodily autonomy as well. This has the very convenient by-product of not having to acknowledge how wildly expensive it is to actually raise a family, which some people seem to be happy with if they don't have any suggestions on how we improve the situation.

And of course, you can paper over this by just importing more and more people and driving up rents and pressure on services anyway.

Day care rather the payment for it is a thorny nettle to grapple. I'm not sure what the answers are. I know there's not one solution.

Here's some thoughts that come to mind.

None of my siblings nor their children have used day care that I'm aware of. They have either taken an income hit and lived on one income or other family members (Grandparents Aunts and Uncles etc) have helped out. So while they have paid the same taxes as everyone else they have not had any government assistance. Because of this my thoughts on this issue may be different to others on here.

No, my family isn't well off, far from it. There is no family money, my dad was a tradesman and mum was a a stay at home Mum as was usual.

I know not having to access day care isn't the reality for many people, and some will need to use day care, and may need help to make ends meet.

I don't have a problem giving a helping hand but at what point am I starting to enable someone to have a standard of living better than I'd be prepared to accept if I were in their position?

When does helping make ends meet stop, and enhancing a life style start? The problem is, we all will have differing opinions on where this occurs.

I firmly believe we need to encourage couples to have families while they are young as that is the best time for both the parents and their offspring. Society needs to help enable that in some way. We also need to encourage a birth rate that ensures at least a static population rather than the negative growth we are facing. If I believe in this then I need to be prepared to help in some way.

Subsidising day care could be seen by some as subsidising employers. Is that fair? I only say this to raise a discussion point as employers would easily and justifiably argue otherwise. Never the less it's still a argument that could be debated.

So there are plenty of competing arguments that need to be considered.

I think we need to address the underlying issues to enable families to survive without needing government support.

We all go on about the cost of living, it's nothing new. Today I stumbled across a newspaper article from 1908 lamenting the ever increasing price of land and how new "scientific" farming practices would need to be introduced to allow farmers to survive. I know this is far removed from day care but illustrates how costs of living transcends the ages. Oh, how some things never seem to change.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3095945 28-Jun-2023 18:22

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/green-mp-julie-anne-genter-slams-national-after-christopher-luxon-promises-to-make-electric-vehicle-drivers-pay-road-user-charges.html

Has to happen sometime.

1 | ... | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111